PER:

Nidhi Verma, Member

1        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 35 against the opposite parties on the allegations that on 13.11.2020 Harwant Singh has died in accident. The complainant is legal heir of deceased Harwant Singh being father. FIR No. 0818/20, under Section 279, 304-A, IPC has been registered in respect of unfortunate incident at Police Station City of District Muzafar Nagar and the complainant is an author of above said F.I.R. The self attested copy of said F.I.R. is Ex. C-2 and self attested copy of death certificate of Harwant Singh is Ex. C-3. The opposite party is bank and provide banking services to the public as per their requirement. The deceased Harwant Singh had opened an account bearing No. 50100300538603 in the bank of opposite parties and had availed the services rendered by the opposite parties during his life time. The opposite parties had issued Ru-pay Debit Card “Easy Shop Platinum” bearing Number 6521 6602 1872 3839. At the time of issuing the above said debit card the opposite parties had given assurance of services [privileges] as follows:-

1. 5% cash back on utility bill payments made issuing the Rupay Debit Card
2. Zero fuel surcharge
3. Personal Accidental Death/ Permanent disability insurance of Rs.2 Lakh.
4. Online payment ready
5. Zero liability protection sum up to Rs. 1 Lakh.

The opposite parties had issued a letter bearing Number BR 2297 and had given assurance in respect of above stated services. The said self attested copy of RuPay Debit Card is Ex. C-4 and Self attested copy of letter is Ex. C-5. After the death of Harwant Singh, the complainant being legal heir has approached many times to the opposite party No. 2 to claim accidental insurance of Rs. 2 Lakh but the opposite party No. 2 has refused the claim of complainant vide letter dated 18.1.2021 by stating that “As per bank late Mr. Harwant Singh has not done POS transaction in last 90 days prior to date of accident. Hence, not eligible for claim” but at the time of offering above stated service/ insurance such term and condition was not communicated to the deceased and moreover above stated condition is also not stated in letter bearing No. BR 2297 as such the above said condition is highly arbitrary. The self attested copy of letter dated 18.1.2021 is Ex. C-6. During his life time deceased Harwant Singh had done so many transactions by using the said Ru-Pay Debit Card it is unequivocal from the bank statement of deceased Harwant Singh. The self attested copy of the bank statement is Ex. C-7. The complainant prayed the following relieves:-

1. Directions may be issued to the opposite parties to accept the accidental claim of deceased Harwant Singh and Rs. 2 Lakh may kindly be released in favour of the complainant being legal heir.
2. The opposite parties may kindly be directed to compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses on account of  negligent service may be awarded to the complainant in the interest of justice.

Alongwith the complainant, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. C-1, Self attested copy of FIR Ex. C-2, Self attested copy of death certificate Ex. C-3, Self attested copy of RuPay Debit Card Ex. C-4, Self attested copy of letter bearing Number BR 2297 Ex. C-5. Self attested copy of letter dated 18.1.2021 Ex. C-6, Self attested copy of Bank statement Ex. C-7.

2        Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties and opposite party appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the complaint under the reply is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant is not legal heir of deceased Cardholder as per the law. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The complainant does not qualify the ingredients of a valid complaint as envisaged in Section 2(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant has created a false story in his complaint to mislead this commission by concocting and distorting the facts and circumstances of the present case. The complainant in the present complaint has alleged that the cardholder i.e.  Late Mr. Harwant Singh had opened an account bearing No. 5010030538603 with the opposite parties. The opposite parties had issued a RuPay Debit Card bearing No. 6521 6602 1872 3839. At the time of issuing the above said debit card the opposite parties had given assurance of service as follows:-

1. 5% cash back on utility bill payments made issuing the Rupay Debit Card
2. Zero fuel surcharge
3. Personal Accidental Death/ Permanent disability insurance of Rs.2 Lakh.
4. Online payment ready
5. Zero liability protection sum up to Rs. 1 Lakh.

The opposite parties had issued a letter bearing No. BR 2297 and had given assurance in respect of the above stated services. The cardholder died in an accident on 13.11.2020 and the complainant being legal heir approached many times to the opposite party No. 2 to claim accidental assurance of Rs. 2,00,000/- but the opposite party has refused the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 18.1.2021 by stating that “As per bank, late Mr. Harwant Singh has not done POS transaction in last 90 days prior to the date of accident, hence not eligible for claim but at the time of offering above stated service/ insurance such terms and conditions were not communicated to the deceased.  On the death of Harwant Singh, the complainant being the legal heir of deceased Harwant Singh approached the opposite parties  to claim accidental insurance of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The complainant is not entitled for any accidental claim since the cardholder i.e. Harwant Singh had not done any point of sale transaction in last 30 days prior to date of accident. The cardholder Late Mr. Harwant Singh was a well educated man and he purchased the RuPay debit card after understanding all the terms and conditions of the HDFC Bank RuPay Debit card which are reproduced herein for the perusal of this commission:-

-Personal Accidental Death/ Permanent Disability Insurance of Rs. 2,00,000/-

To keep any Insurance Cover Active, Debit Card must be used for atleast 1 POS/ Ecom Transactions every one in 30 days or Debit Card to have active registration for atleast one standing instruction on Debit Card.

Personal Accident Death Cover by Air/ Road/ Rail-Base Sum Assured Rs. 5,00,000/-

In addition, the customer is also eligible for an accelerated insurance cover of upto Rs. 5 Lakh, basis his/ her spends using the Debit Card at merchant outlets or online.

Important:

In order to claim the Personal Accident Death Cover, the Claimant (nominee of the customer’s account/ legal heir) should submit the below mentioned documents within 1 month of Cardholder’s death, at any nearest HDFC Bank branch

• Claim form/ request letter from the nominee of the account/ legal heir
• Death summary from the hospital (if card holder admitted to hospital)
• Postmortem Report
• Death Certificate issued by municipal authorities.
• Final police inspection report.
• Bank Statement, 1 year prior to date of loss (1 year in case of Platinum & 6 months in case of gold cards)
• Nominee details of the cardholder.
• Indemnity Bond on the stamp paper.
• Relationship proof of nominee with the Cardholder
• KYC documents for card holder and nominee both (Photo ID & address proof)
• NEFT details of the nominee. Terms & Conditions as per Cardholder’s agreement applicable.

Terms and conditions were explained to the deceased cardholder thereby informing the cardholder all the features, terms and conditions. The accidental claim was rightly repudiated by the opposite parties since the Cardholder had failed to do Point of Sale Transaction in last 90 days prior to the date of accident which can be adduced from the statement of account of Mr. Harwant Singh. A point of sale (POS) is a place where a customer executes the payment for goods or services and where sales taxes may become payable. The card holder had done transactions using his RuPay Debit Card but did not do a single Point of Sale transaction, therefore, the complainant being the legal heir of the cardholder is not eligible for the claim. The same was communicated to the complainant vide letter dated  18.1.2021. In the said letter, it was stated that the complainant had not done point of sale transaction in last 90 days prior to date of accident. 30 days (minimum) is the mandate limit for doing the point of sale transaction prior to the date of accident which can be extended up to 90 days (maximum) for the benefit of the cardholder. But the deceased Mr. Harwant Singh had not done any POS transaction in the last 90 days as well as therefore left with no other alternative the opposite parties had to repudiate the claim.  The opposite parties have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.  Alongwith the written version, the opposite parties have placed on record documents i.e. certificate Ex. OP1, 2/1, Photostat copy of letter Ex. OP1,2/2, Photostat copy of statement Ex. OP1, 2/3, Photostat copy of letter dated 18.1.2021 Ex. OP1, 2/4, Affidavit of Harkirat Singh Ex. OPs 1, 2/5.

3        We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite parties and have carefully gone through the record and written arguments placed on the file.

4        Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that on 13.11.2020 Harwant Singh has died in accident. The complainant is legal heir of deceased Harwant Singh being father. FIR No. 0818/20, under Section 279, 304-A, IPC has been registered in respect of unfortunate incident at Police Station City of District Muzafar Nagar and the complainant is an author of above said F.I.R.. He further contended that the opposite party is bank and provide banking services to the public as per their requirement. The deceased Harwant Singh had opened an account bearing No. 50100300538603 in  the bank of opposite parties and had availed the services rendered by the opposite parties during his life time. The opposite parties had issued RuPay Debit Card “Easy Shop Platinum” bearing Number 6521 6602 1872 3839. At the time of issuing the above said debit card the opposite parties had given assurance of services [privileges] as follows:-

1. 5% cash back on utility bill payments made issuing the Rupay Debit Card
2. Zero fuel surcharge
3. Personal Accidental Death/ Permanent disability insurance of Rs.2 Lakh.
4. Online payment ready
5. Zero liability protection sum up to Rs. 1 Lakh.

He further contended that the opposite parties had issued a letter bearing Number BR 2297 and had given assurance in respect of above stated services.  He further contended that after the death of Harwant Singh, the complainant being legal heir has approached many times to the opposite party No. 2 to claim accidental insurance of Rs. 2 Lakh but the opposite party No. 2 has refused the claim of complainant vide letter dated 18.1.2021 by stating that “As per bank late Mr. Harwant Singh has not done POS transaction in last 90 days prior to date of accident. Hence, not eligible for claim” but at the time of offering above stated service/ insurance such term and condition was not communicated to the deceased and moreover above stated condition is also not stated in letter bearing No. BR 2297 as such the above said condition is highly arbitrary. He further contended that during his life time deceased Harwant Singh had done so many transactions by using the said Ru-Pay Debit Card it is unequivocal from the bank statement of deceased Harwant Singh and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.

5        Ld. counsel for the opposite parties contended that the complaint under the reply is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant is not legal heir of deceased Cardholder as per the law. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The complainant does not qualify the ingredients of a valid complaint as envisaged in Section 2(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant has created a false story in his complaint to mislead this commission by concocting and distorting the facts and circumstances of the present case. The opposite parties had issued a RuPay Debit Card bearing No. 6521 6602 1872 3839. At the time of issuing the above said debit card the opposite parties had given assurance of service as follows:-

1. 5% cash back on utility bill payments made issuing the Rupay Debit Card
2. Zero fuel surcharge
3. Personal Accidental Death/ Permanent disability insurance of Rs.2 Lakh.
4. Online payment ready
5. Zero liability protection sum up to Rs. 1 Lakh.

The opposite parties had issued a letter bearing No. BR 2297 and had given assurance in respect of the above stated services. The cardholder died in an accident on 13.11.2020 and the complainant being legal heir approached many times to the opposite party No. 2 to claim accidental assurance of Rs. 2,00,000/- but the opposite party has refused the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 18.1.2021 by stating that “As per bank, late Mr. Harwant Singh has not done POS transaction in last 90 days prior to the date of accident, hence not eligible for claim” but at the time of offering above stated service/ insurance such terms and conditions were not communicated to the deceased.  On the death of Harwant Singh, the complainant being the legal heir of deceased Harwant Singh approached the opposite parties  to claim accidental insurance of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The complainant is not entitled for any accidental claim since the cardholder i.e. Harwant Singh had not done any point of sale transaction in last 30 days prior to date of accident. The cardholder Late Mr. Harwant Singh was a well educated man and he purchased the RuPay debit card after understanding all the terms and conditions of the HDFC Bank RuPay Debit card. Terms and conditions were explained to the deceased cardholder thereby informing the cardholder all the features, terms and conditions. He further contended that the accidental claim was rightly repudiated by the opposite parties since the Cardholder had failed to do Point of Sale Transaction in last 90 days prior to the date of accident which can be adduced from the statement of account of Mr. Harwant Singh. A point of sale (POS) is a place where a customer executes the payment for goods or services and where sales taxes may become payable. The card holder had done transactions using his RuPay Debit Card but did not do a single Point of Sale transaction, therefore, the complainant being the legal heir of the cardholder is not eligible for the claim. The same was communicated to the complainant vide letter dated  18.1.2021. In the said letter, it was stated that the complainant had not done point of sale transaction in last 90 days prior to date of accident. 30 days (minimum) is the mandate limit for doing the point of sale transaction prior to the date of accident which can be extended up to 90 days (maximum) for the benefit of the cardholder. He further contended that the deceased Mr. Harwant Singh had not done any POS transaction in the last 90 days as well as therefore left with no other alternative the opposite parties had to repudiate the claim and prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed.

6        We have carefully gone through the rival contentions of the Ld. counsels for the parties.

7        As a result of above discussion, we are of the considered view that there is no dispute regarding the RuPay Debit Card and no dispute regarding debit card privileges. The main dispute is regarding the terms and conditions of the Privileges of the issued RuPay Debit Card. Opposite party No. 2 has refused the claim of the complainant by stating that  “As per Bank the late Mr. Harwant Singh has not done POS transaction in last 90 days prior to date of accident, Hence not eligible for claim” . It is pertinent to mention here that according to Ex. C-5 terms and conditions of Personal Accidental Death/ Permanent Disability Insurance of Rs. 2 Lacs:- You are entitled to a Personal Accidental Death Cover by Air/ Road/ Rail and Permanent total Disability Insurance Cover- Sum assured Rs. 2 Lakhs. For any claims under Personal Accidental Death Insurance to be accepted and processed, the Cardholder should have carried out at least 1 transaction using the RuPay Debit Card, within 30 days prior to the event date. After gone through the terms and conditions in Ex. C-5, the privileges of  Zero Liability Protection Sum up to Rs. 1 Lakh:- is the condition where POS transaction in last 90 days prior to date of accident has been applied clearly stated that  “this protection is only applicable for Point of sale (POS) transaction and not for ATM/ on line debit card. No such condition is stated for personal accidental death/ permanent disability insurance of Rs. 2 Lacs. Hence, according to terms and conditions of the Debit Card Privileges, no such condition has been written on which basis opposite party No. 2 has repudiated the claim of the complainant Ex. C-6. As per bank statement Ex. C-7, Late Harwant Singh used the debit card on 13.11.2020 on the same date of his accident. Further, he regularly used debit card before 13.11.2020 i.e. 11.11.2020, 8.11.2020, 5.11.2020 and so on, which fulfill the condition of RuPay Debit Card as per Ex. C-5. Personal Accident Death/ Permanent Disability Insurance of Rs. 2 Lacs, that the card holder should have carried out at least 1 transaction using the RuPay Debit Card within 30 days prior to the event date.  From Ex. C-5, it is clearly observed that the opposite party No. 2 mis-matched the terms and condition of two different privileges of the RuPay Debit Card . Personal Accidental death / permanent disability Insurance of Rs. 2 Lacs and Zero Liability Protection sum up to Rs. 1 Lakh are two different privileges and both have different terms and conditions stated in Ex. C-5. But the opposite party No. 2 repudiated the claim on terms and conditions of Zero Liability Proection Sum up to Rs. 1 Lakh. But as per personal accidental Death/ Permanent Disability Insurance of Rs. 2 lacs no such condition is applicable for POS. By not making the insurance claim to the complainant by the opposite parties, it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

8        The opposite parties have taken objection that the complainant is not legal heir of the deceased but we are not agree with the plea of the opposite parties because the complainant is father of deceased insured and the opposite parties are dealing with the complainant with regard to the insurance claim in question which is quite clear from the letter dated 18.1.2021 Ex. OP-4.

9        In light of the above discussion, the complaint succeeds and the same is hereby allowed with costs in favour of the complainant. The opposite Parties are directed to make the insurance claim of Rs. 2 Lakhs to the complainants. The complainant has been harassed by the opposite parties unnecessarily for a long time. The complainant is also entitled to Rs. 15,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs 11,000 /- as litigation expenses. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation.  Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission

14.05.2024